WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WENT INTO LIMP MODE. TURNED IGNITION OFF, WAITED 10 MINUTES, THEN CRANKED VEHICLE, AND IT RAN NORMALLY...UPDATED 12/04/14 *BF
2010 Ford Escape
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Escape years
Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Escape years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsI WAS DRIVING ALONG AND MY CAR STOPPED RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT 50 MPH ENTERING THE HIGHWAY. THIS HAPPENED A MONTH AGO. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE AS WELL AS MY CAR TAKING OFF WHEN I ACCELERATE FROM STOPPED POSITION. TODAY 7/31/14 THE GAS PEDAL FAILED TO WORK AGAIN WHEN IN A TURN THANK GOD NOBODY WAS BEHIND ME. YOU …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AND MY CAR STOPPED RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT 50 MPH ENTERING THE HIGHWAY. THIS HAPPENED A MONTH AGO. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE AS WELL AS MY CAR TAKING OFF WHEN I ACCELERATE FROM STOPPED POSITION. TODAY 7/31/14 THE GAS PEDAL FAILED TO WORK AGAIN WHEN IN A TURN THANK GOD NOBODY WAS BEHIND ME. YOU GUYS KNOW THERE IS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE WITH ALL THESE FORD ESCAPES BUT YET YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE FROM A REAR END COLLISION BECAUSE THE THROTTLE STAYS CLOSED ON THE HIGHWAY? PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. MY WIFE AND KID ARE IN THIS CAR WHAT HAPPENS I GO TO PULL OUT AND IT DECIDES TO JUST STAY STUCK HALFWAY INTO THE LANE BAM I GET T BONED THEN HAVE TO SUE EVERYONE THAT KNEW ABOUT THIS ISSUE. *TR
VEHICLE HAD EXITED FROM FREEWAY AND WAS STOPPED ON AN EXIT RAMP STOP LIGHT. WHEN GAS WAS PUSHED TO MOVE VEHICLE FROM STOPPED POSITION, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. INITIALLY, THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASH AND THEN LATER, THIS DISAPPEARED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE WAS …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAD EXITED FROM FREEWAY AND WAS STOPPED ON AN EXIT RAMP STOP LIGHT. WHEN GAS WAS PUSHED TO MOVE VEHICLE FROM STOPPED POSITION, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. INITIALLY, THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASH AND THEN LATER, THIS DISAPPEARED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A NEARBY AUTO PARTS FACILITY WHERE A COMPUTER CODE EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED- THIS YIELDED THE SAME CODE APPEARING 3 TIMES: A PROBLEM INVOLVING THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM SENSOR. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT WHEN THE SAME PROBLEM CODE APPEARS 3 TIMES DURING THE CHECK, THIS ACCURATELY PIN-POINTS THE PROBLEM. *TR
WHILE DRIVING AT 55MPH ON ROAD. I LOST ALL POWER TO GAS PEDAL THE CAR WAS HARD TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. PUT CAR IN PARK SHUT CAR OFF .WAITED A FEW MINUTES AN STARTED CAR UP. IT RAN THIS HAPPENS 2 OR 3 TIMES ON THE SAME DAY THEN IT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN FOR A WEEK OR TWO THIS A ONGOING PROBLEM THAT FORD SHOULD PLACE A …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT 55MPH ON ROAD. I LOST ALL POWER TO GAS PEDAL THE CAR WAS HARD TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. PUT CAR IN PARK SHUT CAR OFF .WAITED A FEW MINUTES AN STARTED CAR UP. IT RAN THIS HAPPENS 2 OR 3 TIMES ON THE SAME DAY THEN IT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN FOR A WEEK OR TWO THIS A ONGOING PROBLEM THAT FORD SHOULD PLACE A SAFETY RECALL NOT ON SOFT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM#13NO3 THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. *TR
WHILE TRAVELING ON I495 AT A STEADY HIGHWAY SPEED OF 68MPH THE CAR WITHOUT WARNING DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED WITH RAPID DECELERATION. THE ENGINE DID NOT SHUT DOWN BUT RAN APPROX. 800-900RPM. WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE TO AVOID BEING HIT FROM BEHIND. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND RESTART TO GET ANY THROTTLE RESPONSE. I TRAVELED OF…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING ON I495 AT A STEADY HIGHWAY SPEED OF 68MPH THE CAR WITHOUT WARNING DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED WITH RAPID DECELERATION. THE ENGINE DID NOT SHUT DOWN BUT RAN APPROX. 800-900RPM. WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE TO AVOID BEING HIT FROM BEHIND. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND RESTART TO GET ANY THROTTLE RESPONSE. I TRAVELED OFF THE INTERSTATE ON SLOWER ROADS TO GET HOME FOR FEAR OF THIS HAPPENING AT HIGH SPEED AGAIN. IT HAS HAPPENED THREE MORE TIME BOTH AT HIGH SPEED AND ACCELERATION FROM A STOP. IT WAS BACK TO THE FORD DEALER FOR THE RECALL 13B17 ON 7/7/14. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO MORE EVENTS OF NO POWER FROM STOP AND LOW POWER AT HIGHWAY SPEED SINCE THE TSB WAS PERFORMED. NO PARTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED, NO CODES SET. *TR
I HAD JUST TURNED LEFT UNDER AN UNDERPAS AND WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE UNDER AN OVERPASS I REMEMBER THINKING "WOW. THIS IS APOWERFUL ENGINE." A CAR WAS COMING IN FRONT OF ME AND WHEN I BRAKE IT DID NOT SLOW DOWN AND I HIT THE CAR AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER WHEN I CAME TOO THE HORN WAS BLOWING AND TWO PEOPLE WERE POUNDING ON MY W…
Read full complaint
I HAD JUST TURNED LEFT UNDER AN UNDERPAS AND WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE UNDER AN OVERPASS I REMEMBER THINKING "WOW. THIS IS APOWERFUL ENGINE." A CAR WAS COMING IN FRONT OF ME AND WHEN I BRAKE IT DID NOT SLOW DOWN AND I HIT THE CAR AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER WHEN I CAME TOO THE HORN WAS BLOWING AND TWO PEOPLE WERE POUNDING ON MY WINDOWS AND MY EMERGENCY BAG HAD DEPLOYED, I WAS RELEASED. THEY GAVE ME FIRST AID UNTIL THE AMBULANCE CAME, TREATED ME AND TOOK ME TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. THE OTHER DRIVER WAS NOT INJURED. THEY KEPT ME OVERNIGHT. I BELIEVE BECAUSE I HAD A CONCUSSION. I WAS VERY CONFUSED. THEY KEPT ME OVERNIGHT AND WENT HOME THE NEXT DAY. THE DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE WAS IN ACCESS OF $16,000.00. *TR
WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH ON I-45 SOUTH OF HOUSTON, TX. MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER. I IMMEDIATELY HAD TO MANEUVER ACROSS 3 LANES OF TRAFFIC WHILE COASTING TO A STOP. LUCKILY I WAS NOT HIT!!! I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND ALLOWED IT TO SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES. I RESTARTED IT AND THE ORANGE WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED ON THE DASH. I TURN…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH ON I-45 SOUTH OF HOUSTON, TX. MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER. I IMMEDIATELY HAD TO MANEUVER ACROSS 3 LANES OF TRAFFIC WHILE COASTING TO A STOP. LUCKILY I WAS NOT HIT!!! I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND ALLOWED IT TO SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES. I RESTARTED IT AND THE ORANGE WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED ON THE DASH. I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED IT AGAIN. THIS TIME THE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP CAME ON. I DROVE THE VEHICLE HOME WITH LIMITED OPERATION, DECREASED ENGINE POWER AND VEHICLE SPEED. I EXPERIENCED FAILURE ONE MORE TIME DURING THIS TRIP. WHEN I HAD THE DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE CODES (DTC) PULLED IT WAS P2111, "THROTTLE BODY STUCK OPEN." RESEARCHING IT ON THE INTERNET REVEALED NHTSA ACTION NUMBER PE13003. *TR
THE BACK HATCH WILL NOT OPEN. THERE'S NO CLICKING SOUND WHEN LOCKING OR UNLOCKING. THE WINDOW DOES OPEN AND CLOSE.
THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 2MONTHS AGO (APRIL 2014) AS I WAS DRIVING ON A STATE ROAD (NEW CIRCLE RD IN LEXINGTON KY)AT AROUND 60MPH DURING MY MORNING COMMUTE AROUND 8AM. THE VEHICLE SEEMINGLY STALLED BUT ALL THE SYSTEMS WERE FINE (STILL HAD POWER STEERING, LIGHTS, RADIO, BRAKING SYSTEM ETC) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF T…
Read full complaint
THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 2MONTHS AGO (APRIL 2014) AS I WAS DRIVING ON A STATE ROAD (NEW CIRCLE RD IN LEXINGTON KY)AT AROUND 60MPH DURING MY MORNING COMMUTE AROUND 8AM. THE VEHICLE SEEMINGLY STALLED BUT ALL THE SYSTEMS WERE FINE (STILL HAD POWER STEERING, LIGHTS, RADIO, BRAKING SYSTEM ETC) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ACCELERATOR WHICH DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WHEN I PUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TURNED THE ENGINE OFF, SAT FOR ABOUT 5 MINS & WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE ON THE ROAD WITHOUT FURTHER ISSUE (THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT DIDN'T EVEN COME BACK ON). THE MOST RECENT DATE WAS 06/07/14 WITH MY FAMILY IN THE CAR AS PASSENGERS. I WAS AT A STOPLIGHT TURNING LEFT WHEN, AS PREVIOUSLY, THE ENGINE STALLED AS I WAS TURNING. AGAIN, ALL SYSTEMS REGISTERED AND WERE WORKING BUT WHEN I PUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS NOTHING HAPPENED. AGAIN I WAS LUCKILY ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. THIS TIME AFTER WAITING ROUGHLY 5 MINS AND TURNING THE ENGINE BACK ON, NOTHING HAPPENED AFTER I HIT THE ACCELERATOR. I TURNED THE ENGINE BACK OFF AND WAITED AN ADDITIONAL 5 MINS. THIS TIME I WAS ABLE TO GIVE THE CAR GAS AND AS MY HOME WAS NEARBY WAS THANKFULLY ABLE TO MAKE IT TO MY HOUSE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HOWEVER DID NOT GO OFF AS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY DEALERSHIP ON 06/09/14 AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
1ST OCCURANCE HAPPENED WHEN GOING INTO AN EXIT IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM THE HIGHWAY. ALL GADGETS FROZE AND SHUT DOWN. ENGINE KEPT RUNNING BUT STAYED AT 40 MPH NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PRESSED ON THE BRAKE. 2ND OCCURENCE HAPPENED ON THE HIGHWAY IN NJ, SAME THING SPEEDOMETER STAYED STUCK AT 40 MPH NO MATTER HOW MANY TIM…
Read full complaint
1ST OCCURANCE HAPPENED WHEN GOING INTO AN EXIT IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM THE HIGHWAY. ALL GADGETS FROZE AND SHUT DOWN. ENGINE KEPT RUNNING BUT STAYED AT 40 MPH NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PRESSED ON THE BRAKE. 2ND OCCURENCE HAPPENED ON THE HIGHWAY IN NJ, SAME THING SPEEDOMETER STAYED STUCK AT 40 MPH NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PRESSED ON THE BRAKES. *JS
Official recalls
316V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Illustration